ORDER K.C. Agrawal, J. - This writ petition has been preferred by the State of U.P. against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Jaunpur, dated, March 28, 1981, allowing the appeal of Ganesh Rai Degree College (hereinafter referred to as the college) filed under S. 13 of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgment of the Prescribed Authority. 2. On service of notice under sub-Sec. (2) of S. 10 of the Act, the College filed an objection. The objection was not accepted and the Prescribed Authority declared 164.34 acres of land as surplus with the College. The-appeal preferred by the College was allowed and the case was remanded to the Prescribed Authority for a fresh determination. On September 6, 1977, the Prescribed Authority -decided the case afresh and determined the ceiling limit with the College to be 102.22 acres of irrigated land. In the appeal, the District Judge found that one of the controversies relating to sale deeds executed by the Degree College had since not been decided, it called upon the Prescribed Authority by its order dated 5th August. 1978, to redetermine the same. The Prescribed Authority held that the sale deeds executed after 24th January. 1971 were invalid being not either in good faith or for adequate consideration. by its order dated 31-12-1980. On the findings being received, the learned Additional District Judge. decided the appeal on 28th March, 1981 and allowed the same on the finding that the Degree College had since become the Post Graduate College. S. 5(1) of the Act imposing the limit of ceiling area did not apply to it. The learned Additional District Judge also found that as the mutation of name in favour of the vendees had been effected in the revenue records. the sale deeds executed by the Degree College were liable to be held to be valid. On these findings, the learned Additional District Judge found that the Degree College did not possess surplus land and, as such, the proceedings for determination of surplus area with it were liable to be dropped. Against this judgment, the present writ petition has been preferred by the State of U.P. 3. The question in this case is about the applicability of S. 5(1) of the Act to the Degree College. The sub-sec. Against this judgment, the present writ petition has been preferred by the State of U.P. 3. The question in this case is about the applicability of S. 5(1) of the Act to the Degree College. The sub-sec. (1) of S. 5 imposes ceiling on land holdings and lays down that no tenure holder could be entitled to hold in the aggregate throughout Uttar Pradesh. any land in excess of the ceiling area. Sub-section 12) of S. 5 provides for the classes of persons to whom sub-sec. (I) of S. 5 would not apply. Amongst the various classes, one of them is contained in 1.(c). This clause reads as under : "(c) an intermediate or degree college imparting education in agriculture or a post-graduate college." 4. Before U.P. Act No. 11 of 1975 which came into force on 8th June, 1973, this provisions had not made the exemption for the Post-Graduate College. Before this amendment, this Section provided for exemption only to two types of institutions (i) an intermediate college or till degree college imparting education in agriculture. 5. In the instant case, the State of U.P. pleaded that the sale deeds which were executed by the Degree College after 24th January. 1971 were invalid being hit by sub-sec. (6) of S. 5. Sub-sec. (6) of S. 5 provides that in determining the ceiling area applicable to a tenure-holder, any transfer of land made after the twenty fourth day of January. 1971. which but for the transfer would have been declared surplus land under this Act. shall be ignored and not taken into account. This sub-section also provides for certain exemptions. One of the exemptions is that a transfer made in good faith and for adequate consideration and under an irrevocable instrument not being a benami transaction may be held to be a valid transfer. Consequently. the land conveyed by such a transfer although made after 24th January. 1971 will be taken into account. 6. Sub-sec. (1) of S. 5 had come into force on 8-6-1973. 7. In the instant case, the Degree College had executed as many as 135 sale deeds in between 1963 and 1972. Out of these 135 Sale deeds. 62 were executed between 24th January. 1971 and September 1972. The total area conveyed through the said deeds executed after 24th January. 1971 was 91.57 acres for Rs. 36761/- which works out to Rs. In the instant case, the Degree College had executed as many as 135 sale deeds in between 1963 and 1972. Out of these 135 Sale deeds. 62 were executed between 24th January. 1971 and September 1972. The total area conveyed through the said deeds executed after 24th January. 1971 was 91.57 acres for Rs. 36761/- which works out to Rs. 400/ -per acre on an average. Although on the basis of the certificate of the Tahsildar filed by the Degree College itself, the average price of per acre during this period ranged between 500/- and Rs. 1500/-. The list it inner had pleaded that the land had been obtained through leases from Gaon Sabha, for the Degree College on the pretext that it imparted education in agriculture and were transferred on nominal price. 8. Apart from the sale deeds after 24th January. 1971, a number of sale deeds were executed before this date. However. as the Prescribed Authority had found them to he valid and no appeal was preferred' against the judgment of the Prescribed Authority, this Court is not called upon to consider the validity of those sale deeds. As pointed out above. the Prescribed Authority had found the sale deeds as invalid which in appeal was not accepted by the 1st Additional District Judge. 9. There is no dispute in the present case that the sale deeds executed after 24th January, 1971 were invalid unless they were shown to be in good faith and for adequate consideration. In the instant case, the Degree College claimed benefit of Cl. (c) of sub-sec. (2) of S. 5. The submission of the learned counsel for the Degree College was that as by amendment made by U.P. Act No. 2 of 1975. the exemption has been extended to a Post Graduate College, the provision of sub -sec. 11) of S. 5 could not apply to it. If sub -sec. (1) of S. 5 did not apply, the counsel urged, the Explanations appended to sub -sections (1) and (6) of S. 5 laying down a transfer made after 24th January, 1971 would be ignored, would also not not apply. In other words, the submission was that the provision of sub-sec. (6) of S. 5 would apply only to a case where there was. an imposition of ceiling on land holdings. The submission is not tenable. 10. In other words, the submission was that the provision of sub-sec. (6) of S. 5 would apply only to a case where there was. an imposition of ceiling on land holdings. The submission is not tenable. 10. The Degree College became a Post-Graduate College in 1979. The transfers in question were made in between 24th January, 1971 and September, 1972. All the transfers made in between these two dates became invalid on the enforcement of U.P. Act No. 18 of 1973. There is nothing in the Amended Act 2 of 1975 by which the words 'or a Post Graduate College' were inserted in Cl. (c) of sub-sec. (2) of S. 5. This validated the sale deeds executed by any intermediate or degree college imparting education i agriculture even before insertion of the new provision. The transfers made by the degree college were invalid being in contravention of the statutory provision contained sub-sec. (6) of S. 5 of the Act. 11. In Ramkristo v. Dhankisto, AIR 1969 SC 204 at P. 208, the Supreme Court hold that a transfer made in contravention of a statutory provision is invalid and is not validated by repeal of statutes containing the prohibition. A clear logic behind this is that if a transfer is invalid and is not validated by a subsequent prohibition, it cannot be found to be legal. The learned District Judge committed a mistake in holding that on account of the subsequent 1984 ALL.L.J. 173(1) X 1 (1) amendment of Cl. (c) of sub-sec. (2) of S. 5, the transfers made in between the years 1971 and 1972 were to be held to be valid. 12. Placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad, AIR 1981 SC 1711 , which lays down that subsequent events can be looked into for giving the decision on the rights of the parties, the learned counsel urged that the change brought about by the U.P. Act No. 2 of 1975 in Cl. (2) of sub-sec. (2) of S. 5 has to be given effect to by the Courts. (2) of sub-sec. (2) of S. 5 has to be given effect to by the Courts. Taking of subsequent events or change of law brought about by amendments does not empower a Court of law to act ass ai legislature and apply the cases to written such an.amendment cannot be resorted toy In the instant case, the amendment has only laid down that a post graduate college may also become entitled to the benefit of exemption of Cl. (c) of sub-sec. (2) of S. 5 but that amendment would not be retrospective and could also not validate the transfers which were in contravention of law. Cl. (c) of sub-sec. (2) of S. 5 was retrospectively applied with effect from 8th June, 1973. It may mean that after June, 1973, the imposition of ceiling on degree college may not apply but it cannot certainly validate the sale deeds executed before. 13. A cardinal principle of construction is that every Statute is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication is made to have retrospective operations. The interpretation of the learned counsel that any amendment made in Cl. (c) of sub-sec. (2) of S. 5 is textually inadmissible. 14. The learned Additional District Judge was not right in holding that simply because the mutations had been ordered in the revenue papers in favour of the vendees, the State of U.P. could not challenge the validity of the sale deeds executed in between the dates mentioned in S. 5. There can be estoppel against the State Government in such a matter. Law provides for treating the sale deeds or transfers made under the aforesaid cases to be invalid. By accepting the application for mutation, the provisions of S. 5 could not be given a go-by. 15. The learned Additional District Judge committed an error in holding that necessity for money to obtain affiliation for the degree college as post graduate college could be a justification for transferring lands by the degree college. He attached importance to the fact of the sale deeds being in favour of the third person and for holding on that basis also that the transactions were made in good faith. Both of these considerations are irrelevant. The degree college became post graduate college in 1979. The sales made in 1971 and 1972 could not be for the purpose noted above. Both of these considerations are irrelevant. The degree college became post graduate college in 1979. The sales made in 1971 and 1972 could not be for the purpose noted above. The Prescribed Authority in its elaborate judgment found that the sale deeds were not in good faith and for valuable considerations. The Additional District Judge disposed of this controversy without applying his mind and relevant provisions of law. 16. The counsel for respondent No. 2 Degree College, also relied on S. 6 of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act and urged that as lands held by a religious or charitable waqf are exempted from the imposition of ceiling, the learned Judge should have given the benefit of this Section to him. Cl. (f) of S. 6 could apply only to a case where the land is held by a religious or charitable waqf and the income derived from the land is wholly utilised for religious or charitable purpose. This issue was decided against the said respondent by the Prescribed Authority and nothing could be shown to me by the learned counsel against the same. For getting the benefit of S. 6, it was necessary for the respondent Degree College to establish that the income derived from the land held by it wholly was being utilised for religious or charitable purpose. No such evidence was led. This benefit of S. 6 cannot he extended to it. 17. For these reasons, I allowed the writ petition, set aside the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge dated 28.3.1981 and restore that of the Prescribed Authority. The petitioner will be entitled to get costs from the respondent No. 2.